We have all heard politicians talk about diversity, tolerance, understanding, multiculturalism, immigration, integration, assimilation, the melting pot and so on. What do they mean by this?

And what is their long-term goal? "The goal of abolishing the white race is on its face so desirable that some may find it hard to believe that it could incur any opposition other than from committed white supremacists." So says former Harvard Professor Noel Ignatiev, whose magazine is called "Race Traitor."

Anti-racists will rarely admit their goal as clearly as Professor Ignatiev does.

Anti-racists generally will not call themselves "race traitors" or "anti-white," nor will they call white genocide their goal. Instead of saying it directly, they call themselves "anti-racist" and then argue for "a melting pot" where all will be mixed and become brown.

This goal of abolishing the white race can be divided into four basic stages:

(1) The demonization of whites. Another term for this is what is often referred to as "white guilt";

(2) Third world immigration into all white countries and only into white countries;

(3) Forced integration as the first step towards assimilation. Assimilation is not directly forced but everybody who opposes it is condemned for being "racist";

(4) In addition, anyone who speaks out against any part of the process of white genocide will be denounced as a "racist", or as a "white supremacist", or as a "naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews."

The demonization of whites, i.e. the white guilt complex, makes white people accept non-white immigration, integration and assimilation, leading to a melting pot where all formerly white countries turn brown, thus eventually eliminating the white race.

Consider the arguments that the so-called anti-racists use:

Why must white countries have immigration? A commonly used argument for why America must accept immigration is because white people took the land away from the native Americans. If that really was the case one might start to wonder why Germany must accept immigrants. For as we all know, Germans never took their land away from Indians or any other non-white group.

Then you will notice that anti-racists change their argument. They will now talk about the evil Nazis, Hitler, and the Holocaust. They say it would be a disgrace if Germany, with such a history, would discriminate and not take in non-whites.

So what about Britain and France? Britain and France never took their land from anyone nor did they support Hitler. Notice that the anti-racists change their arguments again and pretend to be objectively interested in former colonial powers taking in immigrants from former colonies.

What about Iceland? The people of Iceland did not take the land away from anyone, nor did they support Hitler, nor did they have any colonies. Again the anti-racists will change their arguments in order to support immigration and say that Iceland has an ageing population needing more workers.

If you have argued with so-called anti-racists, you will notice that they always have many arguments for why white countries must have immigration. These arguments, taken as single cases, may seem genuine.

However, consider Japan: Japan was allied with Hitler, had colonies and also has an ageing population. But Japan does not have massive third world immigration. Do anti-racists condemn Japan, and accuse Japan of being a racist country? No! That is because anti-racists are purely anti-white, not anti-Asian.

Anyone who opposes this agenda is automatically accused of being racist.

The agenda says that the white race is a social construct...except when someone is to be blamed.

Another argument is that the white race does not exist and therefore there is no good reason to preserve it. Who is white, the anti-whites will ask?

Anti-whites pretend to have problems with identifying who is white and who is not when people who want to preserve the white race confront them. But at the same time they have no problems identifying who is white when they talk about slavery, colonization, the Holocaust, discrimination, racism and so on.

Anti-racists know, as does everybody, who is white and who is not. The reason they deny the existence of the white race is because they are justifying white genocide. And remember; nothing justifies genocide! "Anti-racist" is just a code word for anti-white.

Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide from 1948 defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such:

Anti-racists, as we know, are anti-white. They are going after all white countries and only white countries. Through their forcing of immigration, integration and assimilation into all white countries, and only white countries, they have shown their intent to destroy the white race in whole. They are deliberately inflicting on the white race conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole.

Whatever weapons these anti-whites come up with, whether the lynching of blacks in the American South in times long gone, or the mass killing of Jews in Germany three generations ago, it is all to justify genocide against the completely innocent generations of whites today.

These anti-whites think this way. Whatever has been done in the past or whatever is being done in the present, it can all be used to justify the genocide and elimination of the white race. Period.

What is our goal as whites?

We who are pro-white want to preserve our race. We believe that all races have the right to exist, including our race. And it is usually when we say this, and include our race, that these people who call themselves anti-racists get mad. We are fighting for our existence, for the right to live.

In the worldview of an anti-white, there is simply no place for white people. In contrast, according to our worldview there is a place for all races, including the white race.